Tweet
Re: NFL jerseys in next Mastro auction
1) light use: i think "light use" is entirely appropriate (ie: ideal) on some jerseys and wholly inappropriate on others. i passed on bidding on a certain jersey in a recent AMI auction because the wear was too heavy. that is, it seemed disproportionate to the time the player had spent on the team that season. in considering mark's rollie fingers shirt and this brown shirt, one would think that if light wear were appropriate for one jersey and not the other it'd be on the fingers and not on the brown. apparently, mears felt differently. mark hayne brought up the fact that apparently older football shirts were able to take more a beating. i'd think the brown shirt would still show something though? for a shirt of this magnitude, now offered from 2 premier auction houses, both descriptions have only mentioned the crotch piece wear.
2) from the REA description: "The offered jersey is not only the first Jim Brown game jersey we have ever seen.. but is also the only example ever seen by MEARS or documented in the MEARS population report...This is the only documented Jim Brown jersey known to date"
the first jim brown shirt MEARS has ever seen and noone from MEARS spoke to the Football HOF, who have 3 in their possession? this strikes me as really, really odd. a $70k shirt and a phone call can't be made to an institution that has 3 of what you have none of? wierd, wacky stuff as johnny c. would say.
3) promo items and salesman's samples have long posed concerns for collectors of all niches. i'm not sure how king o'shea worked back in the day but i'm curious if the promo item route was explored and if so, what sorts of conclusions were reached. it seems saleman's samples would be most common around the time that a given team is either undergoing a redesign or entertaining the notion of changing from it's current supplier. in 1996, the jays gave russell a try for their home jerseys from their main supplier wilson who'd they'd been using since 1977. i imagine around '96, russell made a few samples that led to wooing the jays away from wilson.
and of course, teams have been known to make up promo shirts for things like photo shoots and charity donations. not sure how common that was with the browns in the 60s.
rudy.
1) light use: i think "light use" is entirely appropriate (ie: ideal) on some jerseys and wholly inappropriate on others. i passed on bidding on a certain jersey in a recent AMI auction because the wear was too heavy. that is, it seemed disproportionate to the time the player had spent on the team that season. in considering mark's rollie fingers shirt and this brown shirt, one would think that if light wear were appropriate for one jersey and not the other it'd be on the fingers and not on the brown. apparently, mears felt differently. mark hayne brought up the fact that apparently older football shirts were able to take more a beating. i'd think the brown shirt would still show something though? for a shirt of this magnitude, now offered from 2 premier auction houses, both descriptions have only mentioned the crotch piece wear.
2) from the REA description: "The offered jersey is not only the first Jim Brown game jersey we have ever seen.. but is also the only example ever seen by MEARS or documented in the MEARS population report...This is the only documented Jim Brown jersey known to date"
the first jim brown shirt MEARS has ever seen and noone from MEARS spoke to the Football HOF, who have 3 in their possession? this strikes me as really, really odd. a $70k shirt and a phone call can't be made to an institution that has 3 of what you have none of? wierd, wacky stuff as johnny c. would say.
3) promo items and salesman's samples have long posed concerns for collectors of all niches. i'm not sure how king o'shea worked back in the day but i'm curious if the promo item route was explored and if so, what sorts of conclusions were reached. it seems saleman's samples would be most common around the time that a given team is either undergoing a redesign or entertaining the notion of changing from it's current supplier. in 1996, the jays gave russell a try for their home jerseys from their main supplier wilson who'd they'd been using since 1977. i imagine around '96, russell made a few samples that led to wooing the jays away from wilson.
and of course, teams have been known to make up promo shirts for things like photo shoots and charity donations. not sure how common that was with the browns in the 60s.
rudy.
Comment